tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.comments2018-11-06T04:05:39.445-05:00Bryn Mawr Classical ReviewCamillanoreply@blogger.comBlogger922125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-3051653870817739432018-11-05T13:27:17.112-05:002018-11-05T13:27:17.112-05:00A lovely, thoughtful review. &quot;Finger-foods&qu...A lovely, thoughtful review. &quot;Finger-foods&quot; makes sense only in the presence of eating-utensils; otherwise, all food is &quot;finger-food.&quot; If not &quot;snacks&quot; or &quot;appetizers&quot;, perhaps &quot;amuse-bouches&quot; fits the bill? Instead of &quot;mavericks&quot;, perhaps there may be &quot;ornery&quot; or &quot;truculent&quot; among the three-syllable options.Vivian Ramalingamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07682967999395888416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-33998436432125127672018-10-30T06:04:41.545-04:002018-10-30T06:04:41.545-04:00&quot;requires them to make sense of its mysteries...&quot;requires them to make sense of its mysteries for themselves.&quot; Beautiful.Roland Sassenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328756011803684167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-35475730904596227622018-10-24T05:47:02.198-04:002018-10-24T05:47:02.198-04:00This approach is very interesting but too... compl...This approach is very interesting but too... complicated. Even if the author quotes my own work about Mithra (https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/10.1484/J.SEC.1.100250), there is nothing about my hypothesis less complicated. I think we should begin with Julian in order to make the genealogy of mithraism. And the most important emperor about this question is not Augustus (too early) but Aurelian with Sol. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15169337983534504495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-65894147329192094112018-10-19T15:17:56.199-04:002018-10-19T15:17:56.199-04:00Is John Henderson reviewing a book or merely flaun...Is John Henderson reviewing a book or merely flaunting his own cleverness? In either case, BMCR is too good for this opaque prose. Peter Donnellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127519516762679474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-79886890339861681502018-09-27T17:55:28.596-04:002018-09-27T17:55:28.596-04:00As I have argued elsewhere, a great deal of nonsen...As I have argued elsewhere, a great deal of nonsense is written about the campaign of Adrianople, most of it based on a sloppy reading of the text, and it is immensely satisfying to see this volume make its long-awaited appearance and scatter most of the confusion. It does not even bother to dismiss the half-baked but hugely influential theory of Hans Delbruck that puts Valens already west of Adrianople when the Goths suddenly pop up at Nike. <br /><br />The Dutch editors have got us very close to the meaning of 31.12.3, but they fail to wrap things up at the end of the paragraph where they express puzzlement as to why the Goths are headed for Nike.<br /><br />I respectfully submit that Ammianus makes it reasonably clear what was happening &quot;in the next three days.&quot; It is unusual for him to be so specific about a span of time, and he surely means here the critical three days between the incidents on the road (the units sent to guard the pass through the hills to the north, the first scouting report) as the army neared Adrianople, and the battle itself. During this time the horde, absent a strong force of allied cavalry, was headed slowly (making early camps against dawn sorties from 15 miles away) toward Nike. This waystation lay about a day&#39;s march from Adrianople on the road to Constantinople (see Commentary, p. 186). In other words, it sat athwart the supply lines of a large army, which must daily consume hundreds if not thousands of wagonloads of grain, oil, wine, fuel, pay, indeed all the necessities of life, and all of much interest to the Goths. <br /><br />We do not know whether Nike was Fritigern&#39;s goal before the thwarting of the earlier raid (aimed at that same highway, as Ammianus tells us). But its importance to him must be clear. There his united forces would be blocking Valens&#39;s retreat to his capital as well as eating his substance. Gratian&#39;s arrival might put an end to the fun, but the horde would be as much a threat as ever. To avoid all this, Valens had no real choice but to march out on August 9.<br /><br />If I may make one other small note, at 31.12.11 the Commentary glosses viarum spatiis as &quot;a long distance.&quot; I&#39;m inclined to read it as something more neutral like &quot;a stretch.&quot; Claudian (&quot;In Rufinum&quot; 2.137) uses spatium viarum in the sense of “distance to be covered” in a context where the distance is perceived as all too short for the victim.Peter Donnellyhttp://skookumpete.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-16012068272056220992018-09-25T06:25:05.781-04:002018-09-25T06:25:05.781-04:00ho dimenticato di firmare il commento su Rosellae:...ho dimenticato di firmare il commento su Rosellae: Paolo Liveraniekatontalithoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12164017592186604047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-27154262549143782812018-09-25T06:24:04.944-04:002018-09-25T06:24:04.944-04:00devo segnalare che nel mio contributo su Roselle l...devo segnalare che nel mio contributo su Roselle le terme di cui parlo non sono quelle adrianee al centro della città, ma quelle di Arzygius della fine del IV sec. costruite presso la porta orientale. ekatontalithoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12164017592186604047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-55783243625491481882018-08-23T08:49:41.566-04:002018-08-23T08:49:41.566-04:00I am delighted to read this positive review. I wou...I am delighted to read this positive review. I would just like to point out to readers that, as is usual in this series, this volume was published in paperback as well as hardback from the start and the paperback is currently priced at £24.99/$31.99.Michael Sharpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-75515364602849485922018-07-16T14:10:39.021-04:002018-07-16T14:10:39.021-04:00Can someone please tell professor Selden that his ...Can someone please tell professor Selden that his usual, longish pieces of cross-linguistic bluff intermingling data that are not by any means difficult of access with the most mainstream secondary sources about the ancient Near East while eschewing anything akin to scrupulous references like column and line or unit numberings in spells from the Coffin Texts, have little to do with serious scholarship? All bravado set aside, Selden does not even know how to correctly parse Egyptian (thus the masculine exclamatory stative of the verb Ꜥnḫ is either Ꜥnḫ or Ꜥnḫ.w, something which most mainstream Egyptologists write as Ꜥnḫ(.w)) and he force feeds at all turns the unsuspecting reader with his tendentious special pleading (when he states that &quot;Classical Egyptian, however, regularly employed the stative of the verb Ꜥnḫ, “to live,” in reference to the king as a type of salutary honorific&quot;, Selden conceals the fact that this is an oath formula which is extremely frequent as a formulaic phrase in literary and documentary works no less than in everyday parlance from the Middle Kingdom onward; this state of affair lethally weakens Selden&#39;s linkage with aulic discourse). Close, cross-cultural intertexual readings ought to be rather more sustained and sophisticated than such bricolage as Selden is fond of throwing around in the hope that it will stick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-76096154985914736582018-07-12T06:54:34.816-04:002018-07-12T06:54:34.816-04:00This is not a very helpful review, since the reade...This is not a very helpful review, since the reader has to infer what the author says from the reviewer&#39;s critique. But it is also offensive. Why should those concerned with &quot;gender and sexuality&quot; (many of us) welcome a conversational style and unanswered questions? This formulation is condescending and implies that scholars of gender are less scholarly than others.Ruth Scodelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14057727744688677402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-23552195379826306012018-07-08T17:14:51.177-04:002018-07-08T17:14:51.177-04:00On p. 231, finally, I introduce no circular argume...On p. 231, finally, I introduce no circular argument, but just draw a general conclusion from the evidence collected and analysed: “the analysis conducted so far has hopefully yielded enough evidence to draw a connection between asceticism, philosophical life, and the rejection of slavery and, often paired with this, social injustice resulting in the poverty of many and the affluence of few…. Thus, what has emerged clearly in this chapter, as in the preceding ones, is the relationship between asceticism—especially philosophical asceticism—and the rejection of slavery and of social injustice down to late antiquity and early Byzantine times.” Regarding Aidan, who is also examined on p. 231, far from drawing circular arguments, I problematize the evidence regarding him (“We do not know whether Aidan thought that every human being sold into slavery is enslaved unjustly, as Gregory Nyssen maintained. Thus, this point is moot, all the more so in that we must rely on Bede’s account, not on letters, homilies, or treatises by Aidan himself…”). <br /><br />I use the verb “suggest” (as well as “suppose” or even “surmise”) when I cannot use “demonstrate” or “argue”, in other words when there are hints, even significant hints, but not proofs for a conclusive argument. Let me conclude with words of deep gratitude for reading my book and highlighting its importance in the review, which honours me. <br />Ilaria Ramellihttps://www.shms.edu/content/prof-dr-ilaria-le-ramelli-frhistsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-75019133052492153172018-07-08T17:14:09.741-04:002018-07-08T17:14:09.741-04:00It is again a conclusion from the sources, i.e. pr...It is again a conclusion from the sources, i.e. primarily from Clement’s oeuvre, and not a circular argument, what I indicate on p. 127, that Clement, like the Stoics, was uninterested in the abolition of slavery (focusing more on moral slavery), and that he did not value asceticism to an extreme degree, but rather criticized it, including encratism. This confirms a link between asceticism and slavery, but this emerges once again from the sources; it is not postulated circularly. On the next page I continue to examine Clement’s position and his exhortation to rich believers not to renounce their possessions, but to share a part of them.<br /><br />On p. 218, I am investigating Gregory of Nyssa and I conclude, again on the basis of a thorough examination of the relevant sources (mainly his own writings, but also biographical data) that in his case “the rejection of slavery is not merely a consequence of the rejection of wealth” but is grounded in three Christian arguments, which work on the presupposition that slaves are not simply possessions, but are human beings. These arguments have been analyzed earlier, in Chapters 5 and 6: the theology of freedom, that from social analogy, and an eschatological argument. My conclusion results from the examination of these arguments, as well as of sources on Gregory and his family; it is no circular argument. On p. 222, I am considering Dunn’s hypothesis on Melania and Pinianus, who are represented by both Palladius and Gerontius as embracing an ascetic lifestyle and divesting themselves of all possessions. Dunn argued that dispossession was not total. I simply observe that even if Dunn is right, “the significance of the connection between asceticism and renunciation of slave ownership and of wealth that emerges from the case of Melania and Pinianus is not diminished and can scarcely be downplayed. Indeed, it is meaningful that the sources themselves, Palladius and Gerontius, emphasize exactly this connection.” On p. 225, I cite hermits and semi-hermits for whom it is documented that they kept no slaves, such as Antony and Naucratius, and observe that extreme ascetics such as the stylites very likely did not make use of slaves; Simeon the Stylite renounced slave ownership. I also remark that Theodoret explicitly portrays Simeon’s asceticism as philosophical asceticism, which plays an important role in my investigation. <br /><br />(To be continued.)Ilaria Ramellihttps://www.shms.edu/content/prof-dr-ilaria-le-ramelli-frhistsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-6614973228311073052018-07-08T17:13:23.423-04:002018-07-08T17:13:23.423-04:00On p. 62, likewise, what I say is not a conjecture...On p. 62, likewise, what I say is not a conjecture based on circular argument, but it is what transpires from the sources: “What emerges from the analysis of these passages and of ancient Scepticism in general is that these philosophers were uninterested in the abolition of slavery and social injustice, as well as in asceticism, thereby in a way reinforcing e contrario the hypothesis that there was a connection between the two.” On p. 65, again, I am highlighting what the sources say, in this case concerning Numenius, without any circular argument: “Numenius connects the lack of slaves and voluntary poverty with the choice of self-sufficiency, αὐτάρκεια, a typical philosophical—especially Stoic-Cynic—and ascetic ideal. This further reinforces the link between asceticism (including philosophical asceticism), voluntary poverty, and the rejection of slavery, which will emerge more and more clearly from the present investigation.” Similarly, on p. 69, I analyse the evidence concerning Plotinus and do not propose any circular argument: “even if there is no record that he ever attacked the institution of slavery, Plotinus, as a rather radical ascetic, seems to have rejected legal slavery, at least personally, and to have owned no slaves, just as he owned no property. This would be in line with Plotinus’ delineation of civic virtues in <i>Enneades</i> 6.8.39.5: where there is injustice, to set things straight, and where there is poverty, to display liberality. His disciple Rogatianus gave up slaves and wealth upon embracing asceticism (Porph. <i>Vit.Plot.</i> 7).” On p. 71, I am dealing with Porphyry and parsing evidence on his asceticism and his stance towards social justice and slavery; far from introducing a circular argument to support their link, I remark that in the case of Porphyry, “asceticism does not seem to have meant the renunciation of one’s possessions, but rather abstinence from some foods, temperance, and other practices. This suggests that Porphyry’s asceticism probably did not entail renunciation of slave ownership.” The same is stated on the same page with respect to Iamblichus, again on the basis of the available evidence: “It is not verifiable, however, whether Iamblichus gave up all possessions and slaves (just as we have seen that this was not the case with Plato). This would seem somewhat unlikely, if even Pythagoras, the ideal philosopher and ascetic and the inspirer of a good deal of Iamblichus’ works, is portrayed by Iamblichus himself as the owner of a slave.”<br /><br />On p. 74, the argument is not circular but actually the opposite, since I am contemplating exceptions: ascetics who did not reject slavery and social injustice, such as Proclus, who practiced forms of asceticism but did not give up his patrimony or slaves. I note that several Platonists were ascetics, but “only in very few cases, such as that of Plotinus, is renunciation of possessions documented. Plotinus may also have given up keeping slaves, although certainty on this point cannot be attained. <i>In this case</i>, one can again see a connection between asceticism and renunciation of possessions, of slave ownership, and of oppressing fellow humans.” Note the use of “in this case,” which excludes a circular, generalizing argument. Likewise, when I go on to say, “We shall soon see this connection more clearly at work in some ascetics in Hellenistic Judaism, and especially in early Christianity,” I refer to the evidence I shall present from the sources concerning Essenes, Therapeutae, Gregory of Nyssa etc.; I am not introducing a circular argument. In the same way, on p. 91, I point out that “both the Therapeutae and Origen were ascetics” and both “owned no slaves and chose voluntary poverty”; in what follows, I examine the sources for the asceticism of Origen, having already presented those concerning that of the Therapeutae. This is no circular argument, but critical analysis of historical sources. <br /><br />(To be continued.)Ilaria Ramellihttps://www.shms.edu/content/prof-dr-ilaria-le-ramelli-frhistsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-50515449420599265262018-07-08T17:10:40.849-04:002018-07-08T17:10:40.849-04:00I am profoundly grateful to Richard Gamauf for the...I am profoundly grateful to Richard Gamauf for the careful reading of my book and for deeming it an important advance in scholarship, in full breadth and depth, fascinating, innovative, deserving the closest attention, and indispensable to scholars working on social justice and slavery in antiquity and late antiquity from now on. I am honoured that my assessment of the evidence is deemed to be performed “with superior command.”<br /><br />It will be useful to readers to offer some clarifications concerning a methodological issue raised in the review. It is not quite the case that, “Wenn ein Anhänger asketischer Ideen auch den Besitz von Sklaven ablehnte, hätte sie weiters zu zeigen, dass dies nicht aus der Ablehnung jedes Eigentums (damit auch des Eigentums an Sklaven als Sachen) resultierte, sondern von diesem die Sklaverei als nicht rechtfertigbares Herrschaftsverhältnis über Menschen verurteilt wurde”. In fact, I do contemplate several cases in which ascetics—committed to different degrees or forms of asceticism—did not reject slavery, from Paula (191) to Augustine (152-159), from Porphyry (71) to Proclus (72-74). Only in certain cases, such as that of Gregory of Nyssa, do I claim that the rejection of slavery was not simply a corollary of the rejection of possessions, but derived from the rejection of injustice and the oppression of other people.<br /><br />The only reservation expressed in the review concerns an alleged circularity of argument (which I always try to avoid, being committed to both philosophical and historical rigour, as well as philological), detected on pp. 28, 62, 65, 69, 71, 74, 91, 127, 218, 222, 225, 231. According to Gamauf, I “take criticism of slavery as an indicator of ascetic aspirations” (reference to p. 28 of my book). However, on p. 28 I anticipate that in the course of the monograph, it will emerge from my analysis that some thinkers such as Gregory of Nyssa deemed slavery against nature and also urged people to renounce slave ownership on the grounds that it is impious. As it emerges from the evidence, those who did so were ascetics. Now, this results from the sources, for instance in the case of the Therapeutae, of the <i>Sextii Sententiae</i>, of Gregory of Nyssa, and many others who renounced wealth and slave ownership when they embraced asceticism; I do not deem criticism of slavery an indicator of asceticism per se; rather, it is a matter of fact, which I point out on the basis of the relevant sources, that many who rejected slavery and social injustice were ascetics. Hints are already in Plato’s line.<br /><br />(To be continued.)Ilaria Ramellihttps://www.shms.edu/content/prof-dr-ilaria-le-ramelli-frhistsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-46823950909762724152018-06-27T13:25:51.437-04:002018-06-27T13:25:51.437-04:00One might have expected the reviewer to mention, i...One might have expected the reviewer to mention, in connection with ancient story and Soviet archaeology, Adrienne Mayor&#39;s The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women Across the Ancient World (Princeton UP, 2014).Farhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03208983901605865808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-90259885461511664442018-06-21T04:53:14.300-04:002018-06-21T04:53:14.300-04:00Your reviewer notes Tanya Pollard’s claims that “S...Your reviewer notes Tanya Pollard’s claims that “Shakespeare (most likely) collaborated on his early tragedy Titus Andronicus with George Peele, a known translator and aficionado of Euripides. Pollard argues that Titus includes some specific references to Euripides’ Hecuba…”<br />But Peele’s (lost) translation of one of Euripides’ Iphigeneia plays was from Erasmus’s Latin version. Peele was certainly the co-author of Titus Andronicus, and the two quotations from Euripides’ Hippolytus occur in scenes written by him: 2.1 and 4.1, See Brian Vickers, Shakespeare, Co-Author (Oxford, 2002), pp. 138-40 and Chapter 3, pp. 148-243.<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15418213848872000143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-5003507807601716192018-06-10T01:17:44.610-04:002018-06-10T01:17:44.610-04:00The primary virtue of a reviewer seems to me to re...The primary virtue of a reviewer seems to me to read the reviewed book carefully (competence, which this book will hopefully find, is another matter). As far as my own contribution is concerned, Mr Leventhal says this : &quot;Gauthier Liberman addresses three topics in his chapter: the myrtle branch held during sympotic performance; the etymology of the sympotic song, the skolion; and the nature of chains or series of sympotic songs. (...) What makes the contribution frustrating is that each section ends in a non liquet&quot;. Do they ? The first section, where I connect AISAKOS, a name of the branch with an eastern word meaning &quot;myrtle&quot;, certainly does not. The second section proposes on a difficult issue a new hypothesis which the reviewer criticizes without bothering to tell what it is. The short third section does end with a non liquet but only as far as Alcaeus and Sappho (studied at the end) are concerned. Gauthier Libermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752165241020153405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-10038483051258277902018-05-18T16:05:34.867-04:002018-05-18T16:05:34.867-04:00I too think quite highly of Martin&#39;s new intro...I too think quite highly of Martin&#39;s new introduction. I just wish the publisher had left in Lattimore&#39;s introduction as well. My old copy of the first paperback edition, with Lattimore&#39;s introduction, is unfortunately printed on acidic paper, and is gradually disappearing...Steven Bollingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03215202747829300924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-56974478066400347032018-05-07T21:28:55.115-04:002018-05-07T21:28:55.115-04:00The comment above might require the same time of r...The comment above might require the same time of review Finglass leveled at Reitze&#39;s book. It studiously avoids the very serious charges adduced and instead attempts to pigeonhole the review as satire. I am glad, for one, that Finglass saves us the trouble of reading a book which seems to offer nothing new and misses much that is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-62581910307686061172018-04-24T13:53:48.213-04:002018-04-24T13:53:48.213-04:00BrynMawr publiziert mit dieser Besprechung eine Ku...BrynMawr publiziert mit dieser Besprechung eine Kuriosität. Sie handelt gar nicht von ihrem Gegenstand. Sie gehört gar nicht in ein Rezensionsorgan. Sie ist eine Satire.<br />Sie liefert uns das Inhaltsverzeichnis des zu besprechenden Buches, wir erfahren eine Meinung über die Betreuung von Doktordissertationen an deutschen Universitäten, über den Geschmack und die Urteilskraft des Herausgebers der Reihe, in der das Buch erschienen ist, schließlich, daß, wie am geringen Umfang der Bibliographie abzulesen, sein Autor nichts Eigenes zu Sophokles zu sagen habe. Ansonsten? Nichts, außer daß dem an Seitenzahlen umfangreichsten Buch über Sophokles, das er jemals sich erinnere, in Händen gehalten zu haben, das eine oder andere hätte noch hinzugefügt werden müssen.<br />Eine unfreiwillige Satire also, die ein Mißverhältnis ans Licht bringt, das Zerwürfnis zwischen dem Wunsch, etwas sagen zu müssen, und der Kunst, es zu finden (Horaz ars 139).<br />Immerhin zwingt die Besprechung zu angelegentlicher Lektüre des hier verdammten Buches und bietet dem Leser nebenbei, sofern er sich der Anwürfe noch erinnern kann, Gelegenheiten genug, zu bedauern, daß die Redaktion seine Anzeige in derart gleichgültige Hände gegeben hat.<br />An die Adresse der Redaktion von BrynMawr ist freilich (zu Iuvenal sat. 1, 30) nach Cicero als Entschuldigung hinzuzusetzen: nihil est difficilius ut in vita sic in oratione quam quid deceat videre. Eine bleibende, sehr beherzigenswerte Mahnung.Wolfram Brinkerhttps://www.klassphil.uni-mainz.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-63778854518873433702018-04-03T14:45:55.888-04:002018-04-03T14:45:55.888-04:00For some Byzantine Greek copyists of Revelation 13...For some Byzantine Greek copyists of Revelation 13,17-18 on the &quot;mark of the beast,&quot; PERSAIOS (Greek) represented the number 666 (80 5 100 200 1 10 70 200), as also did LATEINOS.ParaManichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09062741602330850713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-69165986821132402532018-04-02T23:53:28.657-04:002018-04-02T23:53:28.657-04:00With regard to the reasons why Crates put an Athen...With regard to the reasons why Crates put an Athenian crash on stage, the attack against Pericles and the Athenian imperialism could be a sufficient one for alluding to these dramatic events (see Philologia Antiqua 5, 2012, p. 46): it might have been the intention of the poet to blame the decision of accepting Inaros’ request for assistance in order to support the Egyptians during the rebellion against Persia and of beginning a military expedition in a far land. I am aware of what happened to Phrynicus when he put the dramatic events of Miletus on stage (see Sfingi e Sirene, p. 6): however, it should be remembered that during the conquest of Myletus unarmed women and children were reduced in slavery by the Persians, while at Prosopitis the bloody fight involved only soldiers and most of the survivors were perhaps allowed to leave the besieged Prosopitis and return home safely; moreover, Aeschylus himself seems to have referred to the Athenian expedition in Egypt without fear of offending the sensibility of his fellow citizens (see Philologia Antiqua 5, 2012, p. 46 note 2; E. Luppino, L’intervento ateniese in Egitto nelle tragedie eschilee, Aegyptus 47, 1967, 196-212). <br /><br />Contrary to what Nesselrath claims, a place called Δουλόπολις was located in Egypt by Olympianus of Byzantium (or perhaps Ulpianus of Emesa?), FGrH 676 F 3, apud Steph. Byz., s.v. Δούλων πόλις p. 237.5 Meineke (= δ 117 Billerbeck). I cited this source in the commentary to Cratinus fr. 5 (= 223 PCG), but by a mere slip at the ending of line 8 of p. 81 I transcribed erroneously some words of the text.<br /><br />The beginning of the fragment a of ‘Papyrus Cumont’ is seriously damaged. I do not see a convincing alternative for restoring the text. With regard to the φώσων, a reference to this Egyptian garment is attested without any doubt in Cratinus, fr. 8 (=269 PCG), v. 1. Concerning the presence of some parody of religious practices beneath the lines 49f. of the same fragment, Nesselrath observes that this hypothesis of mine is too much hazardous: however, a comparison between the lines above mentioned and Aristophanes Av. 716 might take us in this direction. The parody of the Egyptian cult towards the sacred animals will be attested very well in some fragments of Attic Middle Comedy (e.g. Antiphanes fr. 145 PCG, Timocles fr. 1 PCG, Anaxandrides fr. 40 PCG: see A. Sofia, La religione egizia nei frammenti dell’archaia e della mese, Aegyptus 85, 2005, 297-324, at 311ff.).<br /><br />With regard to the radishes in Cratinus fr. 9 (350 PCG), I believe that a more plausible fate for them was that of being put in a pot, without having any possibility of thinking something, as it happens also to the ράφανοι both in Alcaeus Com. fr. 24 PCG and in Crates fr. 19 PCG, v. 1. <br /><br />Anna SOFIA, PhD<br />Anna Sofianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-76447466633892800692018-04-02T23:53:02.932-04:002018-04-02T23:53:02.932-04:00In referring to the interpretation I suggested for...In referring to the interpretation I suggested for the historical background of Crates fr. 2 (37 PCG), it would be opportune to remind the commonly accepted chronology – based on the course of events given by Thucydides, while the reliability of the dates provided in Diodorus’ account is much controversial and some Aramaic and Demotic documents from southern Egypt cannot be considered decisive on this point – of the Athenian expedition in Egypt, which culminated in the destruction of the Athenian naval forces in the Nile Delta. Around 460 BC, there was probably not the siege of Prosopitis (which ended with the defeat of the Athenian soldiers), but the battle of Papremis (see Herodotus 3.12.4; Aigyptiazein, p. 67). According to most of the scholars, it is to be assumed that the final disaster on the Prosopitis’ island took place only around 454 BC, after the Egyptians and allied Athenians were locked up by Megabyzus and the Persian army in the siege of Prosopitis for a period of eighteen months. According to Thucydides’ account (1.110.1), in fact, the final Athenian catastrophe in Egypt occurred six years after the Athenians, who were campaigning at Cyprus with their ships, had accepted to help the Egyptians against the Persians and had sailed to the Nile Delta. After an initial victorious campaign in the Delta, the Athenians joined Inaros in besieging the Persians in the citadel of Memphis known as the ‘White Wall’ (Λευκòν τει̃χος). But in 456 a Persian army led by Megabyzus invaded Egypt and broke the siege of Memphis, droving the Greeks into the Prosopitis’ island, which was formed by two branches of the Nile joined together by a canal. Finally, the Persians succeeded by using a stratagem: they diverted the course of the river and connected the island to the mainland, being at this point able to invade the island. In my view (see Aigyptiazein, p. 66; Philologia Antiqua 5, 2012, p. 46ff.), the events that Crates alluded to are those which took place at the final stages of the siege of Prosopitis, when some contrast probably arose about a truce with the Persians. According to Diodorus (11.77.3-5), the Athenians burnt their ships in order to avoid their falling into the hands of the enemy and demonstrated a great courage: the Persian commanders, feeling thereupon a strong admiration for them, concluded a truce with the Athenians, whereby the soldiers were allowed to depart in peace. At this point, the accounts of Thucydides and Diodorus seem to diverge rather: according to Diodorus, the Athenians returned via Libya and Cyrene to their homeland in safety, while, according to Thucydides, most of them perished. According to Ctesias (FGrH 688 F 14 § 38), then, Megabyzus took Inarus and the Greek soldiers to Artaxerxes on condition that they should suffer no harm from the King and that the Greeks should be allowed to return home whenever they pleased. At any rate, it must be remembered that the survivors of the siege of Prosopitis probably reached Athens, after a long march across the Libyan desert to Cyrene, only a year later, around 453/2 BC. Thus, the chronological gap Nesselrath supposes between the Athenian defeat in Egypt and the beginning of the Crates’ career (around 450 BC) must to be widely reduced. Moreover, according Thucydides 1.112.3, at the time of the campaign in Cyprus sixty ships were sent to Egypt again, as reinforcements to Amyrtaeus, who was continuing the resistance against the Persians in the northern part of the Delta after the capture of Inaros. Thus, around 450 BC, the Athenians soldiers were still familiar with Egyptian landscapes. Anna Sofianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-87214201688157917042018-04-02T23:49:29.513-04:002018-04-02T23:49:29.513-04:00In the following lines I will go to present some r...In the following lines I will go to present some remarks on Nesselrath’s review of my book.<br /><br />With regard to Nesselrath’s statement that ‘quite a few of Egyptians were present at Athens (mainly in the Piraeus) as merchants and craftsmen’, I would like to add some further observations. <br />Although we can be sure that metics of Egyptian origin were living in Athens throughout the classical period, at no time can the amount of them be precisely estimated: the racial composition of the metoikia being not a great preoccupation for the Athenians, the ethnic origin of individual metics is given by the literary and epigraphic sources not always. Yet, at some time they obtained even the grant of enktesis for building a temple to Isis (we can learn it from IG II², 337): this fact (which perhaps occurred in the late fifth century BC, if the statesman decisive in securing the grant for the first Egyptian shrine on Attic soil was the same Lycurgus who was laughed at by Aristophanes, Cratinus and Pherecrates for his Egyptian leanings) would seem to indicate actually the presence of a substantial and influent community of Egyptians at Athens. <br /><br />Nesselrath points out a ‘certain contradiction’ in the last section of the introduction, in which I suggest that the comic poets did not use the verb αι̉γυπτιάζειν with a negative sense (well attested in later lexicographical sources), while I cite ‘several comic fragments in which individual Egyptians are presented in an unequivocally negative way’. <br />Nesselrath’s objection is very interesting, because it concerns the correct evaluation of the attitude of the Athenians towards the Egyptians in the fifth century BC and beyond; but can we surely affirm that the inhabitants of the country of the Nile were actually represented in a negative light by the poets of Attic Old Comedy? <br />Among the fragments in which Egyptians are treated negatively, one could include e.g. Archippus, fr. 1 (= 23 PCG). An Egyptian fishmonger called ‛Ερμαι̃ος is depicted here without any doubt as a despicable man. But was he regarded as a despicable man because he was an Egyptian metic or because he was a fish seller? If one read the commentary to the first verse of the fragment, my answer to this crucial question will be clear enough (see p. 13: «C’è da dire però che la qualifica negativa di μιαρώτατος è attribuita ad Ermeo non a causa della identità etnica, ma per l’attività che svolge […]. La professione di pescivendolo infatti risulta costituire uno dei bersagli preferiti dello scherno dei comici, […]»). Obviously the element of caricature in the fragment is very strong, but it is indissolubly linked with the profession of fish vendor rather than with the ethnic origin. <br />Similar problem arises in interpreting the treatment of Δεινίας by Strattis, fr. 1 (34 PCG): not very gratifying notes about this Egyptian perfumer seem to be imputable to Heraclides Ponticus, but there is no reason to believe that the Egyptian perfumer was already slandered by Strattis. <br />Anna Sofianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6588247216777605704.post-12561108775874109752018-03-27T08:34:46.768-04:002018-03-27T08:34:46.768-04:00I suspect that there is a typo in this review. Cou...I suspect that there is a typo in this review. Could you check with the reviewer and correct it if so?<br /><br />&quot;There is some novelty in the translation. At 1.4-5, καὶ γὰρ αὕτη οὐκ ἄλλο, εἶτα ἕν, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἄλλο, εἶτα ἀγαθόν, Gertz translates: ‘since this nature [sc. the One] itself is not something or other, and then one, or is the Good something or other, and then good.’ &quot;<br /><br />That should probably read &quot;...nor is the Good...&quot; rather than &quot;...or is the Good....&quot;<br /><br />I think this is more likely to have been a mistake in the Reviewer&#39;s transcription of the translation, than in the translation itself, since the reviewer does not observe that &quot;oude&quot; must be &quot;nor&quot;, not &quot;or&quot;.<br /><br />(I also agree with the Reviewer that the allo here should be &quot;something else&quot;, not &quot;something or other&quot;).<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Tad Brennan<br />tad.brennan@cornell.eduAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com